The case of classroom robots: teachers’ deliberations on the ethical tensions

Abstract

Robots are increasingly being studied for use in education. It is expected that robots will have the potential to facilitate children's learning and function autonomously within real classrooms in the near future. Previous research has raised the importance of designing acceptable robots for different practices. In parallel, scholars have raised ethical concerns surrounding children interacting with robots. Drawing on a Responsible Research and Innovation perspective, our goal is to move away from research concerned with designing features that will render robots more socially acceptable by end users toward a reflective dialogue whose goal is to consider the key ethical issues and long-term consequences of implementing classroom robots for teachers and children in primary education. This paper presents the results from several focus groups conducted with teachers in three European countries. Through a thematic analysis, we provide a theoretical account of teachers' perspectives on classroom robots pertaining to privacy, robot role, effects on children and responsibility. Implications for the field of educational robotics are discussed. KeywordsEducational robots, Social implications, Ethics, Teachers' perspectives, Thematic analysis, Focus group AcknowledgmentsWe would first of all like to thank all the teachers and students who took part in the studies. We would also like to extend our gratitude to teacher education students Rebecka Olofsson and Trixie Assarsson for their excellent video editing. We thank Tiago Ribeiro, Eugenio Di Tullio, Etienne Roesch and Daniel Gooch for facilitating some of the focus groups. We would also like to thank master student Thomas Rider for his initial transcription services and ideas. We also thank the MUL group at the University of Gothenburg for their valuable feedback on an earlier version of this paper. This work was partially supported by the European Commission (EC) and was funded by the EU FP7 ICT-317923 project EMOTE (www.emote-project.eu). P. Alves-Oliveira acknowledges a FCT grant ref. SFRH/BD/110223/2015. The authors are solely responsible for the content of this publication. It does not represent the opinion of the EC, and the EC is not responsible for any use that might be made of data appearing therein.We recommend you cite the published version. The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx

Endowing a Robotic Tutor with Empathic Qualities: Design and Pilot Evaluation

“…This approach should, of course, be discussed in relation to the ethical implications it holds. For example, empathic relations with robots could potentially be understood as deceptive 17 , and present a number of implications, which in the longer term may be deemed undesirable by, e.g., teachers 73 . Notwithstanding, it has also been questioned whether robots could even reach a stage where they can be considered empathic 76,75 .…”

Educators' Views on Using Humanoid Robots With Autistic Learners in Special Education Settings in England

“…These respondents from autism education settings shared many basic perceptions of robots with both the mainstream, UK-based educators in Kennedy et al (2016), including robots as having "simplistic interactions" and being "primarily seen as a scripted, reactive machine" (p. 5), and with the Canada-based special educators in Diep et al (2015), who felt that robots might "[provide] structure and repetitiveness in a consistent fashion" (p. 2). Yet, the same qualities that our participants saw as potentially so promising for meeting the needs of autistic learners were perceived as obstacles to adoption by the Kennedy et al (2016) mainstream sample (see also Serholt et al, 2017); an illustration that "educators, " "autistic children" and "schools" are not homogenous groups and will have different needs-which need to be fully understood to inform future robotics work.…”

“…Several studies have sought teachers and professionals' views to explore implementing robots within regular educational settings (Fridin and Belokopytov, 2014;Kennedy et al, 2016;Serholt et al, 2017;Cheng et al, 2018) but only a handful have done so within special education settings. Diep et al (2015) interviewed six teachers from a Canadian school for children with multiple and complex needs about their perceptions of social robots, in relation to an anticipatory governance framework (Guston, 2014).…”

Engineering Cheerful Robots: An Ethical Consideration

“…In contrast, psychology-driven ethical appraisals such as outlined by Amanda and Noel Sharkey [45,46] do highlight issues of emotional attachment, deception of the child, and loss of human contact (see also [33]). Apropos teachers' attitudes to robots in the classroom, research reported in [47] demonstrates the exigency of taking the consideration of ethics beyond design issues and toward engagement with stakeholders' views on how robots may affect their current practices. The point made here, however, concerns biases located in one side of a schism within the discourse of social robotics [10,43,48].…”